rondeau heritage conservation district study - Chatham-Kent

Transcription

Municipality of Chatham-Kent
Legislative Services
Planning Services
To:
Mayor and Members of Council
From:
Ryan Jacques, Planner
Planning Services
Date:
June 23, 2015
Subject:
Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Study
Recommendation
It is recommended that:
1.
The Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Study be adopted.
Background
In March 2015, Chatham-Kent entered into a contract with MHBC Planning Limited
(“MHBC”) to complete the work necessary to support designation of the Rondeau
Provincial Park cottage community as a heritage conservation district under the Ontario
Heritage Act (“the Project”).
The project includes two phases. The first phase is complete. It consists of the creation
of a Heritage Conservation District Study. Subsection 40(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act
sets out that a Heritage Conservation District Study shall:
•
•
•
•
Examine character and appearance of the area including buildings, structures
and other property features
Examine and recommend area boundaries
Consider and recommend objectives of designation and content of Heritage
Conservation District Plan
Recommend changes to Official Plan and municipal by-laws, including zoning bylaws
The second phase of the project consists of the preparation of a Heritage Conservation
District Plan and Guidelines. This phase is underway and is scheduled to be complete
in October 2015. Contents of a Heritage Conservation District Plan required by the
Ontario Heritage Act are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Page 2
Statement of objectives to be achieved in designation of area as a Heritage
Conservation District
Statement of district’s cultural heritage value or interest
Description of district’s heritage attributes and of those properties within the
district
Policy statements, guidelines and procedures for achieving stated objectives and
managing future changes
Description of external alterations or classes of external alterations that are of a
minor nature
Comments
The final draft of the Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Study is attached as
Appendix “A”. It is recommended that Council adopt the document as presented.
A public meeting was held on May 22, 2015 regarding the preparation of the Rondeau
Heritage Conservation District Study. Comments received were considered in
completing the final draft of the document.
The Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Study consists of several parts, including:
1. Introduction
a. Background
b. Provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act
c. Purpose of the heritage district study
d. Sources
2. Character and Appearance of the Study Area
a. Introduction
b. The physiographic context and natural resources
c. Historical development and context
d. Summary of historical themes
e. Built heritage character
f. Landscape context and character
g. Land use policy review
h. Heritage conservation and financial incentives
3. Heritage Conservation District Delineation: A Recommended Boundary
a. Introduction
b. Summary of the Rondeau study are character
c. District boundary delineation
d. District boundary definition
e. Conclusions
Page 3
4. Recommended Objectives of the Proposed Designation and Plan
a. Introduction
b. Objectives of the proposed designation for the Rondeau Heritage
c. Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Plan context
The proposed heritage conservation district boundary contains the cottage community
at Rondeau, as well as the circulation network and other supportive Park and
community facilities. Taken together, the resources provide a rationale for the
designation of this area as a heritage conservation district under the Ontario Heritage
Act. Within the proposed district there are approximately 285 cottage properties. An
inventory of these properties is available for review at the following link:
http://www.chatham-kent.ca/PlanningServices/Pages/CurrentProjects.aspx
Next Steps
As noted, the project is proceeding in two phases. The status of each phase and
required next steps are:
1) The creation of a Heritage Conservation District Study.
•
This document is complete and is recommended for adoption.
2) The preparation of a Heritage Conservation District Plan and Guidelines.
•
•
•
MHBC will prepare the Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Plan and
Guidelines.
A second public meeting will take place in late summer to gather feedback
regarding the draft plan and guidelines.
A statutory public meeting will be advertised to take place at a Council meeting in
the fall to consider:
• Establishing a heritage conservation district, and;
• Adopting a heritage conservation district plan.
Council Strategic Directions
The recommendation in this report supports the following Council Directions:
Jobs:
Everyone in Chatham-Kent who wants to work is able to work in
meaningful employment
People:
Chatham-Kent is a welcoming community where people choose to live,
learn, work, and play
Health:
Page 4
Chatham-Kent is a healthy, active, safe, accessible community within a
healthy natural and built environment
Financial Sustainability:
The Corporation of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent is financially
sustainable
Has the potential to support all Council Directions
Neutral issues (does not support negatively or positively)
Consultation
Under Ontario Heritage Act Subsection 40(3) the Municipal Heritage Committee was
consulted with respect to the Heritage Conservation District Study. The Committee did
not advise Council with regard to the study.
Financial Implications
The Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Study related expenses of $26,500 are
funded through a $64,000 project allocation from the Strategic Reserve. The work
required to complete the Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Plan and Guidelines is
anticipated to make use of the remaining budget.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
_______________________________
Ryan Jacques, Planner
Planning Services
____________________________
Bruce McAllister, MCIP, RPP
Director, Planning Services
Reviewed by:
_______________________________
John Norton, Chief Legal Officer
Legislative Services
Attachment: Appendix “A” – Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Study
c:
Municipal Heritage Committee
P:\RTC\LEGISLATIVE SERVICES\2015 Files\PLANNING\Jul 13-15 Rondeau Heritage
Conservation District Study.doc
Municipality of Chatham-Kent
RONDEAU HERITAGE
CONSERVATION
DISTRICT STUDY
(DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW)
Date:
June 2015
Prepared for:
Corporation of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent
Prepared by:
MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC)
In association with:
George Robb Architect
Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect
MHBC FILE 0987 C
Page i
Table of Contents
1.0
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Background ....................................................................................................................................................................................1
1.2
Provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act and provincial guidance .................................................................3
1.3
Purpose of this heritage district study..........................................................................................................................4
1.4
Sources ..............................................................................................................................................................................................5
2.0
CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE STUDY AREA .................................................... 6
2.1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................6
2.2
The physiographic context and natural resources ..............................................................................................6
2.3
Historical development and context ............................................................................................................................8
2.3.1
Staged cottage lot development .........................................................................................................................8
2.3.2
Lease termination policy in Provincial Parks ..............................................................................................10
2.3.3
Current status ..................................................................................................................................................................12
2.4
Summary of historical themes ........................................................................................................................................12
2.5
Built heritage character .......................................................................................................................................................15
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.5.1
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................15
2.5.2
Built heritage resource chronology ..................................................................................................................16
2.5.3
Continuity of architectural elements...............................................................................................................24
2.5.4
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................................................25
Landscape context and character................................................................................................................................26
2.6.1
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................26
2.6.2
The Provincial Park movement and historical context ........................................................................28
2.6.3
Landscape character of the study area ..........................................................................................................30
Land use policy review ........................................................................................................................................................35
2.7.1
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................35
2.7.2
Municipality of Chatham-Kent Official Plan ................................................................................................36
2.7.3
Municipality of Chatham-Kent Zoning By-law..........................................................................................40
2.7.4
Potential development issues ..............................................................................................................................40
2.7.5
Heritage Conservation District Plan guidance ..........................................................................................40
Heritage conservation and financial incentives..................................................................................................40
2.8.1
Municipal tax incentives ..........................................................................................................................................41
MHBC | George Robb Architect | Wendy Shearer
June 2015
3.0
Page ii
2.8.2
Grants....................................................................................................................................................................................42
2.8.3
Loans .....................................................................................................................................................................................42
2.8.4
Heritage Conservation District Plan guidance ..........................................................................................42
HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DELINEATION: A RECOMMENDED BOUNDARY
.................................................................................................................................................43
3.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................43
3.2
Summary of the Rondeau study area character .................................................................................................44
3.3
District boundary delineation .........................................................................................................................................46
3.4
3.3.1
Framework of structuring elements ................................................................................................................46
3.3.2
Concentration of heritage resources...............................................................................................................46
3.3.3
Visual coherence of the study area...................................................................................................................46
3.3.4
Distinctive character ...................................................................................................................................................46
District boundary definition .............................................................................................................................................47
3.4.1
3.5
4.0
Public consultation and district boundary re-definition ....................................................................47
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................................49
RECOMMENDED OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION AND PLAN
CONTENT ...............................................................................................................................50
4.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................50
4.2
Objectives of the proposed designation for the Rondeau Heritage Conservation District ..51
4.3
Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Plan content ..................................................................................53
List of Figures:
Figure 1: Map of Study Area...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Excerpt from Municipality of Chatham-Kent Official Plan, Schedule C4 ............................................ 37
Figure 3: Rondeau Heritage Conservation District proposed boundary ................................................................. 48
List of Appendices:
Appendix A:
Inventory of built heritage resources
June 2015
Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
The Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Study project was initiated by the Municipality of
Chatham-Kent, who sought the advice of MHBC to prepare a work plan and budget to undertake
this project in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proposed work
plan and budget was adopted by Chatham-Kent Council on January 19th, 2015, who opted to fund
the project through their capital budget process.
This work draws from and builds on the previous cultural heritage landscape evaluation of Rondeau
Provincial Park, undertaken by MHBC and George Robb Architect in 2012 on behalf of the Rondeau
Cottagers Association. The analysis investigated the cultural heritage value of the cottage
community at Rondeau, and evaluated the significance of the area as a cultural heritage landscape
using the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Property. Aside from
an evaluation of the cultural heritage resources at Rondeau, the study also contained a thorough
review of the history of park development, and a number of recommendations to conserve the
historic cottage community. The Study concluded that the cottages at Rondeau are an important
part of the formative cottaging history of the Province, that the community represents a major
contribution to the local identity and economy, and that the built features and cultural heritage
landscape should be conserved, protected, and appropriately managed in perpetuity.
The study area being examined for this Heritage Conservation District Study consists of the lands
within Rondeau Provincial Park, with a focus on those lands that are associated with the cottage
community within the Provincial Park limits (see Figure 1 on the following page). Lands within
Rondeau Provincial Park are all owned by the Province of Ontario and managed by the Ministry of
Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). Lots within the Park are leased to individuals, who in turn
own the cottages constructed on the lots. The cottage lots comprise approximately 1.5% of the
area of Rondeau Provincial Park, with the vast majority of the Park consisting of natural areas.
It is important to note that the Heritage Conservation District Study does not contain any
guidelines, policies, or restrictions for property owners. These matters would be reflected in a
Heritage Conservation District Plan, which would be the second phase of this project. The study
team would initiate work on the preparation of a Heritage Conservation District Plan following
Council adoption of this report, as well as authorization to proceed with the second phase of the
project.
June 2015
Page 2
Figure 1: Map of Study Area (outlined in red)
June 2015
1.2
Page 3
Provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act and provincial guidance
The Ontario Heritage Act is the key provincial legislation that enables municipalities to conserve,
protect and manage heritage properties and areas. There are two parts to the Act that concern
cultural heritage:
•
Part IV, which enables a municipality to designate individual properties that are of cultural
heritage value or interest. The Municipality of Chatham-Kent has designated a number of
properties across the Municipality under Part IV of the Act.
•
Part V, which enables a municipality to designate by by-law all or any part of a municipality
as a heritage conservation district. Currently there are no heritage conservation districts
designated under Part V in the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.
Guidance on what constitutes a heritage conservation district is provided by a number of sources.
The Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport in its published guidelines (Heritage Conservation
Districts, A Guide to District Designation Under the Ontario Heritage Act) note that a heritage
conservation district:
“...may comprise an area with a group or complex of buildings, or a larger area with many
buildings and properties. It may also comprise an entire municipality with a concentration
of heritage resources with special character or historical association that distinguishes it
from its surroundings.”
Designating a heritage conservation district is concerned with identifying groups of heritage
properties that together with other distinguishing features or attributes form a distinctive place
worthy of informed protection and management. The Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and
Sport has also noted in its published guidelines “Heritage Conservation Districts: A Guide to District
Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act” that a heritage conservation district typically displays a
number of characteristics including:
“A concentration of heritage buildings, sites, structures; designed landscapes, natural
landscapes that are linked by aesthetic, historical and socio-cultural contexts or use.
A framework of structured elements including major natural features such as topography,
land form, landscapes, water courses and built form such as pathways and street patterns,
landmarks, nodes or intersections, approaches and edges.
A sense of visual coherence through the use of such elements as building scale, mass,
height, material, proportion, colour, etc. that convey a distinct sense of time or place.
A distinctiveness which enables districts to be recognised and distinguishable from their
surroundings or from neighbouring areas.”
June 2015
Page 4
The Municipality of Chatham-Kent’s current Official Plan contains the following guidance with
regards to heritage conservation districts:
“The Municipality may establish heritage conservation districts pursuant to the Heritage Act to
control the erection, demolition or alteration of buildings. The boundaries of the heritage
conservation district shall be established in consultation with the MHC, the affected property
owners and the surrounding community. The following criteria shall be used to guide the
establishment of a heritage conservation district:
a) An area of historic value or the area possesses at least one of the following criteria:
i)
an example of the community’s past social, cultural, political, technological or
physical development;
ii) a representative example of the work of an outstanding local, national or
international personality; or
iii) associated with a person(s) who has made a significant contribution to the social,
cultural, political, economic, technological or physical development of the
community, province, country or the world.
b) An area of architectural value or interest if it possesses one of the following criteria:
i)
a representative example of a method of construction which was used during a
certain time period or is rarely used today;
ii) a representative example of an architectural style, design or period of building;
iii) it makes an important contribution to the urban composition or streetscape of which
it forms a part;
iv) it is recognized as an important community landmark; or
v) a work of significant engineering merit.”
The specific purpose of this Heritage Conservation District Study is discussed further in Section 1.3.
1.3
Purpose of this heritage district study
This Study is the first part of a two-part process that may culminate in a heritage conservation
district at Rondeau Provincial Park. This first phase includes the heritage assessment component
that describes and evaluates the cultural heritage value of the study area located within Rondeau
Provincial Park. The area includes approximately 285 leased cottage lots with privately-owned
cottages, vacant cottage lots, Park facilities, and other features associated with the development of
the cottage community cultural landscape at Rondeau Provincial Park.
June 2015
Page 5
The scope of this Heritage Conservation District Study was guided by the requirements of the
Ontario Heritage Act, notably subsection 40(2) which prescribes that a study shall:
(a) examine the character and appearance of the area that is the subject of the study, including
buildings, structures and other property features of the area, to determine if the area should be
preserved as a heritage conservation district;
(b) examine and make recommendations as to the geographic boundaries of the area to be
designated;
(c) consider and make recommendations as to the objectives of the designation and the content of
the heritage conservation district plan required under section 41.1;
(d) make recommendations as to any changes that will be required to the municipality’s official
plan and to any municipal by-laws, including any zoning by-laws.
Accordingly, the Heritage Conservation District Study report specifically examines the following
aspects of the prospective District:
•
historical growth and development of Rondeau (Section 2),
•
the character of the study area and its integrity (Section 2),
•
land use character (Section 2),
•
geographic boundaries of the area to be potentially designated (Section 3),
•
objectives of the designation and the content of the Heritage Conservation District Plan
(Section 4).
If, as a result of the Heritage Conservation District Study report, the Municipality determines that it is
feasible to proceed with potential designation, the second phase of work would begin. The second
part of the Rondeau Heritage Conservation District process will be the Rondeau Heritage
Conservation District Plan, which would provide the basis for the management and protection of
the area’s heritage character including its buildings, spaces and landscape features.
1.4
Sources
Municipality of Chatham-Kent. Official Plan (May 2014 consolidation).
Ontario. Ontario Heritage Act, RSO 1990, c O. 18
Ontario. Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Heritage Conservation Districts, A Guide to District
Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act, (Published as part of the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit), 2006.
June 2015
Page 6
2.0 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE
STUDY AREA
2.1
Introduction
This section of the Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Study examines the character and
appearance of the study area as required under the Ontario Heritage Act. The various report sections
that follow contain summaries and conclusions from survey work and research analysis, including
the heritage building inventory (see Appendix A). Together, the findings and conclusions of this
section provide the rationale for the boundary delineation that is found in Section 3. Historical
background research was conducted to gain an understanding of the study area and its place
within the development of the municipality and wider area. Historical research identifies the
themes, forces and events that shaped the history of Rondeau and helps to understand the land
patterns, appearance and character of the study area.
The research has focused on four main components: historical settlement and context; study area
resources and character; integrity; and policy review. The research was performed through a
combination of site visits and research, which varied depending on the specific tasks being
undertaken. Related to the historic settlement and built heritage character, information primarily
from the Rondeau Cottage Association publications was reviewed, as well as various historic maps,
historic background, photos, and architectural information. Various Municipal policies were
consulted when completing the policy review exercise. Project team members conducted a site
visit to examine portions of the study area and the resources present.
2.2
The physiographic context and natural resources
The physical setting of Rondeau Provincial Park is defined by the unique geography and climate of
the north shore of Lake Erie. In a pattern duplicated in Point Pelee and Long Point (and to a lesser
degree Turkey Point), Rondeau has a unique ecology created by the forces of lake currents, wind
patterns and sandy soil.
The constant erosion and deposition of sandy soil caused by water and wind currents resulted in a
unique landform, a “cuspate” sandspit, to become known as Pointe aux Pins or Rondeau. This land
form is one of two in North America (the other is found in Florida). The sandspit has projected into
the lake in a north/south orientation and creates a sheltered bay on the western side and active
lake waters on the eastern side. The north/south orientation of the sequentially deposited ridges of
sand and gravel make up the majority of the land in the Rondeau point. Early maps show the linear
June 2015
Page 7
deposits of sand and the resulting marshes between the sand ridges as distinctive patterns still
evident today, particularly in the campgrounds and cottage areas.
Soils and vegetation
The bay at various times has been almost enclosed creating a unique marsh condition along the
shoreline particularly on the eastern side of the bay. Early harbour activity in the mid-1800s focused
on cutting and maintaining an access channel between Lake Erie and the bay.
The soil on the point is sandy, contributing to a unique aspect of its historical development. The
point was an excellent source of timber but not desirable for agricultural purposes. Almost all of
the 19th century settlement that occurred in the former Kent County area occurred on the mainland
leaving the majority of the point un-cleared for farming.
The native vegetation cover found along the temperate north shore of Lake Erie consists of a
Carolinian collection of trees and shrubs. The primary tree species in Rondeau consists of the tulip
tree, beech, sassafras, black walnut, butternut, oak, ash, maple and sycamore as well as white pine
and red cedar.
The maturity of the trees and their high quality led Lt. Governor John Graves Simcoe to declare 350
hectares of Rondeau as a reserve for the use of the Navy. The trees were to be a source of timber
for ship repair and harbour construction.
In addition to the tree collection, the sandy soil conditions support a unique dune ecosystem which
in turn aids in the retention of the soil on the peninsula. The sheltered water of the bay supports a
system of marsh grasses and water lilies, which in turn support a diverse collection of wildlife, fish
and waterfowl.
Wildlife
Rondeau is the home of numerous bird species, many of which nest on the point. At various times
in the year the bird population swells to accommodate the migration of waterfowl. In addition to
the migratory birds, there is a large collection of song birds that are found on the point making it
similar to Long Point and Point Pelee. It is one of the important sites of ecological diversity along
the north shore of Lake Erie and in the province.
Early reports of wildlife include bears and wolves. Although these are no longer present, the animal
population on the point has remained diverse including populations of deer, rabbit, raccoons and
skunks as well as a number of types of amphibians.
June 2015
Page 8
Fishing
In addition to the abundant wildlife and bird populations, the water surrounding Rondeau
supported the fishing industry throughout the latter half of the 19th century and into the 20th
century. Herring, pickerel, whitefish and bass provided the main catch with pound nets and gill
nets used extensively. The historical evidence of the fishery indicates that the nets were anchored
with tamarack poles. Tamarack is a native tree that grows in marsh or sandy dry locations and is an
early example of the human activity taking advantage of the natural environment to support an
industry within the Park boundaries. The herring fishery declined in the mid-20th century with
yellow pickerel succeeding as the popular catch.
In addition to commercial fishing there is an active sport fishing industry within Rondeau Bay which
has brought sportsmen to the area since the 19th century.
The varied collection of vegetation and wildlife combined with the benevolent climate in Rondeau
created a vast number of natural resources that have been used to support human activities for
sustenance, industry, sport and research.
2.3
Historical development and context
2.3.1 Staged cottage lot development
Rondeau Provincial Park was established in 1894 by Act 97, An Act to establish a Provincial Park at
Rondeau. It was created for “the care, preservation, management and improvement of the Park and
the watercourses, lakes, trees and shrubbery, and other matters therein”, and “the lease...of such
parcels of land in the park as may be deemed advisable for the construction of buildings for habitation
during the summer, and such other buildings as may be necessary for the accommodation of visitors or
persons resorting to the park as a sanitarium for health or summer resort.”
The first forty cottage lots were laid out in 1894 and were numbered 1 through 20 on both the Bay
and the Lake sides. In 1906, additional lots were surveyed along both shorelines as an extension of
these original lots. Additional lots were surveyed in 1922 and 1924, and a final survey in 1945. An
additional survey was prepared in 1930 that would have intensified the cottage lots significantly,
but this survey appears to never have been executed. The following is a partial detail from the 1922
survey.
The lots shaded red are from the 1894 survey; the lots outlined in red are from 1906. Earlier lots
were 50’-0” wide x 150’-0” deep. The 1922 lots had 75’-0” frontage, with a depth of 125’-0”. Of
particular interest are the public beach accesses every five or six lots. These accesses are named (i.e.
June 2015
Page 9
Paul St., Dorothy St., etc) along the length of Lake Shore Road and Water Street and still exist today.
The beach has always been in the public domain through these points of access. Cottage lot lines
tend to be two hundred feet or more from the shoreline, at the tree line. It is apparent that day use
visitors and cottagers are able to share the Park and the beach without conflict, and without
causing loss of the sensitive dune ecosystem at the Park.
These lots do not represent real property in that the actual registered lot fabric (Plan of Rondeau
Provincial Park, in the Township of Harwich, County of Kent, dated July 29, 1974, prepared by MNR
Surveys and Mapping Branch) shows the original 17 lots shown on the 1878 Atlas. The surveys of
the lot pattern appear to have been prepared only to organize parcels to lease for cottage
development.
June 2015
Page 10
By 1923 there were 140 cottages built. By 1933 there were 300. By 1949 there were 350 and with
the last building boom, the total had increased to 450 in the early 1950s. The cottagers shared the
Park with several hundred overnight campsites and numerous day visitors.
2.3.2 Lease termination policy in Provincial Parks
The exact source of the Department of Lands and Forests lease termination policy remains
unknown. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century the philosophy of park management
was widely debated. This debate was largely centered around Algonquin Park and the various
commercial, recreational and conservation interest there. In 1954, the Department of Lands and
Forests issued a memorandum that referenced a study entitled “Algonquin Provincial Park – Long
Term Plan of Restoration to its Natural State”. Gerald Killan, in his paper Science and Government
Policy in Algonquin Provincial Park, 1931-1954, explains:
“No new leases would be granted for private, public or commercial purposes,...The
leaseholders in the park were to be phased out over the next forty-years, after one more
renewal of their twenty-one-year leases.”
This new policy applied only to Algonquin Provincial Park. The subsequent 1954 Provincial Parks Act
is silent on the subject.
Up to this point, leases had been renewable on a 21 year cycle, but, by 1958, leases were being
renewed without what had been a standard renewal clause. Throughout the 1960s, the Annual
Reports of the Minister of Lands and Forests contained a statement advising as to the cottage lots
“acquired”. In 1970, this statement read: ”In Rondeau and Algonquin Provincial Parks, a total of 14
leases were acquired in accord with the established policy of reverting these areas to a wilderness state for
public rather than private use.”
In 1979 lease extensions were offered for both Parks on the condition that they would terminate in
1996 or upon the death of the leaseholder. An additional condition prevented bequeathing or
transferring the lease from the then current leaseholder.
In 1986, the current Minister of Natural Resources extended cottage leases again to a common
termination date of December 31, 2017, 21 years beyond the expiry of the last of the old leases.
In 1991, the Rondeau Provincial Park Management Plan was released stating that “The cultural
resources of Rondeau contribute to the history of Ontario....Some examples of cultural themes are: use by
Indians for fishing and hunting, landmark for early travellers, a site for early fisheries and a cottage resort
community.” This same Plan went on to confirm that “Acquisition and removal of cottages will be
June 2015
Page 11
necessary in some priority areas if redevelopment and expansion of park facilities is to take place prior to
2017”. The Rondeau Provincial Park Management Plan, Figure 4, Proposed Development (below)
shows Lakeshore Road removed for most of its length and the area once occupied by the cottage
lots not restored to a natural setting, but rather converted to expanded campgrounds, day use
areas and group camping, all with associated new buildings.
June 2015
Page 12
In 2001, the MNR released their Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy. This document on
Cottages and Recreation Camps stated:
“Recognizing the desire of many Crown land recreational camp permit holders to purchase
their sites, the Ministry has initiated a program to offer for sale or lease those sites that meet
a series of criteria, including environmental sustainability and consistency with established
land use intent. Where sale of the site is not possible for resource management reasons, the
camp holders will normally be able to obtain longer term tenure or will continue with
existing tenure.”
This statement seemed to suggest a more sympathetic attitude toward leaseholders at Rondeau
with longstanding tenure, but that does not seem to have been the case. Throughout the first
decade of the twenty-first century, various political initiatives attempted to resolve the issue of
cottage lease extensions. To date, there has been no change.
2.3.3 Current status
At the time the study team completed the 2012 study, the last cottage to be acquired by MNR was
in the summer of 2011, and it was demolished in January of 2012. MNRF continues to acquire
cottages when they come up for sale, and proceed to demolish them.
2.4
Summary of historical themes
Since the origins of a revamped parks management system in the 1970s, the role of a thematic
organization has been a useful organizing tool in separating the numerous strands of history into
distinguishable agents of change in the landscape. Although the thematic overview of Ontario
history has not been radically overhauled in a Provincial Parks context, it is worth re-examining here
as the basis for better managing what are important and valued structures and landscapes at
Rondeau. A thematic approach assists in managing the wealth of human history and organizing it
into discrete agents of change. Those changes are what may be termed or referred to as “material
history”, that is, human history as expressed in physical alterations, changes or modifications to the
environment or landscape. Material history typically comprises objects and features made directly
or indirectly by human action and intervention in the landscape. These may include individual
structures and buildings as well as myriad combinations that in turn create new, distinctive
landscape types. Over the broad sweep of time those produced by distinct historical themes may
be termed “cultural heritage landscapes”.
The intangible and sometimes ephemeral social history of the development of the Park, day use
areas, campgrounds and cottage community is also very relevant to this study. The Rondeau
June 2015
Page 13
cottage community has been well-documented in research compilations prepared by residents of
the Park. Given the size of the cottage community at Rondeau, the social history is akin to a small
town. There are numerous activities that have occurred (and continue to occur) within the Park
which help to establish this area as a close-knit community. These include events such as
community picnics and BBQs, garage sales, sporting events (triathlon, tennis, softball tournaments,
biking, and horseback riding), annual meetings of the Rondeau Cottagers’ Association, sailing
events, swimming, fishing, hunting, and churchgoing. Past events associated with buildings that
are no longer present include events at the pavilion and dance hall, gatherings at the post office,
and the apiary. The cottage community shares Park resources with all members of the recreating
population, and there are ongoing social and economic ties as a result of recreation at Rondeau.
The social aspect of Park development permeates each of the themes explored below and is an
integral aspect to the significance and cultural heritage value of Rondeau.
While historical themes do not explain the present state, value, interest, condition or significance of
the landscape today, fieldwork can enable such evaluation and explanation. Indeed, continuing
change in the landscape, over many decades or even centuries may account for a succession of loss
and removal, replacement of or additions to buildings, features, landscapes and the environment
generally. Obviously, it is possible that the remnant of one historical theme may be completely
obliterated by another and in cases of abandoned landscapes they may be radically transformed by
the agents and advancement of natural regeneration.
Potential historical themes and subthemes associated with the Rondeau Provincial Park area and
the local community include:
Key theme:
Transportation and communications:
Sub-themes: Rondeau Harbour and Great Lakes navigation
Boat building
Road and Highway developments
Key theme:
Lower Lakes Fishery:
Sub-themes: Bates Fishery
Coll Fishery
The major historical theme associated with the origins and development of Rondeau is quite clearly
Recreation and Conservation together with all associated material historical elements, activities,
features and landscape remains. Given the inevitable broad sweep of history from the 1890s
June 2015
Page 14
through to the present day, there are a number of Rondeau Provincial Park sub-themes that can be
identified, as follows, which account for changes in the landscape.
For both the theme and sub-themes it is possible to identify those distinctive types of material
heritage that are linked both directly and indirectly to that specific theme. These are described at
the end of the theme identification. (The material types are derived from previous work undertaken
by the former Ministry of Citizenship and Culture as part of the Canada-Ontario Rideau-Trent-Severn
study and the Master Plan of Heritage Resources for the District Municipality of Muskoka and the
Wahta Mohawks).
Key theme:
Recreation and conservation
Sub-theme:
Early recreational activity (1890s-1920)
The installation of the Erie and Huron Railroad line to Shrewsbury in 1883 and the 1890s Pere
Marquette Railroad (later Railway) extension to Erieau enhanced tourist opportunities and set the
stage for future outdoor recreation development at Rondeau. Lands used by local farmers for
pasture were transformed for recreation purposes. Former native aboriginal trails as well as
administrative boundaries (Howard-Harwich Township line) and early rough tracks or paths
(Harrison Trail, Water Street and Rondeau Road) provided the basic framework for new routes, and
of access and organization of lots. The Rondeau Yacht Club was also established. Early buildings
and structures initially served Park’s staff and included the Superintendant’s and assistant’s
residences and a hitching shed.
Sub-theme:
Resorts, Summer Cottages and the Automobile (1920-70)
The Rondeau Road originating from the 1880s or earlier was constantly improved and upgraded,
from sand to gravel and eventually fully paved to accommodate increased use, even serving (at the
Province’s expense) the Bate’s summer resort that had developed north of the Park proper.
Construction of Lakeshore Road and Bowman Avenue also responded to the 1920s cottage
building boom, and during the second cottage boom of the late 1940s Evangeline and Centre
Streets were laid out. Horse and buggies provided initial access to the Park but the automobile
prevailed as the major impetus to growth.
Roads and access become more robust and safer as electric lighting was introduced into the Park in
1923 along the main roadway, picnic grounds and key buildings. Cottages which had been built in
a succession of construction waves or booms as lots became available were built in a variety of
styles and materials. Other Park buildings included a broad assortment of facilities: an employee’s
June 2015
Page 15
shack, garages, tool shed, hen house, pheasant aviary, barns, ice and root houses, public kitchen,
refreshment booth, bathhouse, store, pavilion and restaurant.
2.5
Built heritage character
2.5.1 Introduction
The built heritage character at Rondeau was studied as part of the previous Cultural Heritage
Landscape assessment undertaken by the study team, and has been supplemented by work
undertaken as part of this Heritage Conservation District Study. The following partial inventory of
buildings demonstrates the complexity of the community that evolved at Rondeau. A full inventory
is included as Appendix A. These examples have been ordered to correspond with the dates of
the various cottage lot surveys; 1894, 1906, 1922, 1924 and 1945. After the 1950s decision to phase
out the cottage leases, no new lots were created. New Park buildings continued to be built.
In the years preceding the 1950s decision regarding lease termination, the expansion of the
number of cottage lots seemed consistent with the original Act of 1894 that created the Park; that is
to “lease...such parcels of land in the ark as may be deemed advisable for the construction of buildings for
habitation during the summer, and such other buildings as may be necessary for the accommodation of
visitors or persons resorting to the park as a sanitarium or health or summer resort”.
The first 60 years saw a substantial community develop and many of the current cottagers
represent fourth and fifth generations of the original lease holders. An infrastructure had been
established that created a village setting; stores, recreational facilities, a post office, churches, etc.
were established to support cottagers and campers alike. The Yacht Club (c 1932) still functions
today as a community centre.
The buildings recorded in the following are a small sampling of both those that remain and those
that have been removed at Rondeau. While many cottages are vernacular, single-storey and oneand-one-half storey, often with dormers in a variety of forms, others demonstrate the current styles
of their period. The largest of the earlier houses were often two-storey and built in the Edwardian
style.
As was common in residential subdivisions across Ontario, the 1930s witnessed the construction of
Tudor Revival cottages with their characteristics half-timbered gable ends. An unusual addition to
this local vocabulary is the use of faux-log siding.
June 2015
Page 16
The last building boom after the 1945 lots were surveyed resulted in examples of “mid-century
modern” building styles. These are characterized by one storey residences, with low pitch, flat or
mono-pitched roofs.
2.5.2 Built heritage resource chronology
The small sampling of buildings included herein represents the range, but not the quantity of
buildings remaining at Rondeau. The volumes ‘Rondeau Forever’, edited and written by Mr. William
Stephen, should be consulted for a more complete overview of the history and built heritage of
Rondeau. These are:
Rondeau Forever,
Rondeau Forever: The Sequel,
Rondeau Forever: A Family Tradition,
Rondeau Forever: The Adventure Continues.
Pre-1894
Bates Fisheries c 1888; relocated out of Park, 1906.
One of two prominent fisheries, these buildings were located
approximately at the turning circle on the lake side. The Coll Fishery
was located further south on Lakeshore Road on the lake side opposite
the current Visitor Centre and operated from 1903 to 1957.
Bates House, built 1884; demolished 1978.
This house was the subject of an appeal from the Director of the
Historical Planning and Research Branch of the Ministry of Culture in
1978 to the District Manager of MNR to reconsider the proposed
demolition of the house. MNR proceeded to demolish the house in
1978.
June 2015
Page 17
1894 - 1906
Pavilion (left) built 1896; demolished in 1957, and Trading Post, built
1897; demolished 1955 as seen from the `big` dock on the bay side.
By 1957, the Pavilion had fallen into disrepair and the newer Dance
Pavilion had been established on the lake side in 1939. The Trading
Post was replaced by a new Park Store in 1958.
Superintendent’s House and Office; built 1896, demolished 1958.
The gambrel roof is typical of Dutch Colonial Revival style.
Hitching Shed built 1896, removed 1950s.
Originally this building served five teams of horses used for logging and
various other uses throughout the Park. It had become more or less
redundant by the 1930s.
‘Bonnie Briar Bush’, c1896.
One of the oldest buildings remaining in the Park, this Edwardian style
cottage has been well maintained.
June 2015
Page 18
1906 – 1924
Public Bath House c 1914
Several versions of this facility were built on the lake side near the traffic
circle. This may be the 1923 version that replaced the 1914 facility. The
Bath House was finally removed in 1956.
Blenheim Old Boys Club, c1914
The ‘Old Boys’ were a group of local men who built this log structure in
1914. It remains today in private ownership.
Bird Palace (Aviary), built 1917, replaced earlier pens used to keep
ornamental birds (removed).
Bayview Inn, located just north of the Park gates, built in 1918.
It has operated up to the present time although the current building is
the third one on the site. This is one of a number of commercial
enterprises that took advantage of the market created by the volume of
campers and cottagers that were drawn to the Park
Assistant Superintendent’s House, c1914 (demolished 1969)
This Edwardian ten room house was located directly north of the
Superintendent’s house on Rondeau Avenue.
June 2015
Page 19
1924 – 1945
Gas Station built in 1925 at Park Road and Manning Avenue.
Removed 1970 and not replaced.
Sugar Shack, built in 1929; removed in 1959.
Mini-Golf course c 1931
This facility occupied several locations at the north end of the Park, but
was finally removed 1980. At various times this facility included a
bowling green, an archery range and shuffleboard courts.
Yacht Club, established 1932
The Yacht Club building (c 1942) has served both the boating interests
and the residents at large as a community centre for many years. These
functions continue today.
Dance Pavilion, c 1939
Built on the Lake side near the turning circle, this Pavilion had a capacity
of 500. Reports of the opening in 1939 suggest there were 5,000
people in attendance from the surrounding county. It was lost to fire in
1973.
June 2015
Page 20
Park Gates erected in 1937; demolished to widen the road in 1958.
c 1928
This cottage has a ‘U-shaped’ plan with double gable ends facing the
road. This plan became quite common throughout the 1930s. Note
the brick trapezoidal-shaped chimney.
c 1930
An early Tudor Revival style cottage with ‘U-shaped’ plan facing the
road. Note stone trapezoidal chimney and faux-log siding.
c 1936
A large cottage with faux-log siding and board and batten gable ends.
c 1932
This Tudor Revival cottage is one of the largest in Rondeau. Note half
timber gable ends and faux-log siding. The trapezoidal chimney is
described in Section 3.2.2, following.
June 2015
Page 21
C 1938
Another Tudor Revival cottage similar to others mentioned above.
Note that its cobble stone trapezoidal chimney has been truncated.
c 1937
This one-and-one-half storey vernacular cottage is typical of many
Rondeau cottages and was built by the same contractor as the
neighbouring cottage (see following). Wide shed dormers were
common.
c 1937
This one-and-one-half storey vernacular cottage is typical of many
Rondeau cottages and was built by the same contractor as the
neighbouring cottage (see preceding). Wide shed dormers were
common.
1945 - present
St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church, built 1951
As one of the largest gathering places in the Park, St. Gabriel’s Church is
also used as a local meeting facility. This building is an example of a
modest vernacular place of worship of simple frame construction.
Grace Anglican Church, built 1952
This is another example of a modest vernacular place of worship of
simple frame construction.
June 2015
Page 22
Rondeau Pavilion c 1952, lost to fire in 1980.
Located just outside the Park gates, this pavilion attracted people from
the surrounding county and offered international touring talent. Bob
Seeger, Ted Nugent, James Brown, Dianna Ross and Alice Cooper have
performed here.
Park Office built in 1956.
Park buildings in this period adopted this style comprising a field stone
base supporting log walls. Like the cottages of the period, the style of
these Park buildings reflected ‘modern’ trends.
The Park Store, c 1958
The Park Store was originally operated by private interests but is
currently operated by Park staff.
c 1955
A ‘mid-century modern one-and-one-half storey bungalow in the 1945
survey.
c 1960
A ranch bungalow on Lakeshore Road near the south end.
c 1950
A flat roof ‘mid-century modern’ bungalow on Lakeshore Road near the
south end.
June 2015
Page 23
c 1955
A mid-century modern bungalow attributed to Joe Storey, a local
Chatham architect. Note mono-pitched roof and extensive fenestration
c 1967
Cottage leaving the Park.
Pony Barn c1959
This barn housed ponies for the riding facility at the Park.
Visitor Centre
Part of the post-1950s redevelopment of the Park amenities.
Observation Platform, c 2002
Contemporary construction, development as part of the boardwalk system
that allows visitors to view the sensitive natural environment.
June 2015
Page 24
2.5.3 Continuity of architectural elements
The existing legacy of cottage building in the Park is distinguished by a number of distinctive
architectural features and elements. These are described in the following subsections.
Cobble stone
Cobble stone has been used throughout the Park over the years,
despite not being found in the immediate area. It can be seen in the
chimneys of the Bates House (c 1884), retaining walls of the Mini-Golf
course (c. 1931) and elsewhere used as low retaining walls to define
boundaries and changes of use in the landscape, as shown in the
image at the left.
There is a tale from the history of Rondeau that describes the sinking
of a poachers’ ship at Shrewsbury in the mid-eighteenth century by
Rondeau residents. After the poachers had left the area, abandoning
their sunken ship, the locals returned and reclaimed the cobble stone
ballast from the ship to use for their own construction. Whether or not
this event was a contributing factor, the use of cobbles has been
widespread at Rondeau, both for landscape structures and
architectural detail.
Chimneys
This cottage at left (c 1909) is described in Rondeau Forever as being
under restoration and having the last round stone chimney in the
Park. The Bates House (c 1884), now demolished, had two similar
round chimneys. The prevalence of these features is unknown.
However, there is a chimney form unique to the Park that is prevalent
throughout all more recent periods. Many cottages have trapezoidalshaped chimneys that taper from a wide lower part to a narrow ‘neck’.
These chimneys are found on a number of cottages from all periods
and are constructed of cobble stone, field stone, dressed limestone
and brick. Of particular interest is the one at 17388 Lakeshore Road,
which is cobble stone on the inside in the cottage’s great room, but
stuccoed on the exterior with “weathered” edges revealing exposed
brick in keeping with the building’s Tudor Revival style.
June 2015
Chimney at 17388 Lakeshore Road (c 1932) showing
differing interior and exterior materials on the chimney
Page 25
Field stone chimney
(c 1921)
Dressed stone
chimney (c 1930)
Brick chimney
Outbuildings
Many of the Lake side cottages have free-standing outbuildings, often garages, but equally
common are carports. Occasionally these buildings are partially open and partially enclosed
storage.
It appears from available drawings that many of these outbuildings superimposed on the lot
framework are beyond the leased lot boundaries and, if the lots could be described by metes and
bounds, might be considered encroachments onto public property. Given that the leased lots were
stacked with wooden pegs into the sandy soil of the Park many years ago, it may be difficult to pin
point exact lot locations
Carport and storage
Garage in style of related
cottage
Carport and storage
Log storage addition
2.5.4 Conclusion
Although approximately 40% of the cottages have been lost since the peak number of 451 in the
1950s, 285 cottages remain and continue to be useful resources for their owners and serve the
intent of the original Act that created Rondeau in 1894. Most of the Park’s commercial enterprises
have also been removed or demolished. Some of these have been lost to attrition, but most
buildings, especially in regard to the cottages, have been lost as a result of the policies of the MNR.
Those buildings that remain have become all the more important through this process, as rare,
June 2015
Page 26
surviving and valued cultural heritage resources. These resources are still actively used, maintained,
conserved, and cared for by the owners.
The community that evolved at Rondeau in the first 60 years was what the Act intended; a place
where property could be leased in the Park “as may be deemed advisable for the construction of
buildings for habitation during the summer, and such other buildings as may be necessary for the
accommodation of visitors or persons resorting to the park as a sanitarium or health or summer resort.”
The buildings that evolved are representative of their time and, stylistically, represent those
characteristics that might be common elsewhere in the province. The community is unique,
however, in that it was created within the Provincial Park system and encouraged by the provincial
government. The families that contributed to the province’s stated goal of creating this community
had a vested interest in its success and now, over the last 50 years, have had to fight to maintain
their families stake after two, three or even four generations.
Although other Provincial Parks have had cottages on leased land, Rondeau and Algonquin are the
two that remain, the others having severed and sold off the cottage lots. Unique to Rondeau is the
planning of the leased lots with relatively small parcels in blocks of 5 or 6 lots separated by public
access to the beach.
In summary, the cottages that remain are representative of the styles of residential cottage
development over a sixty year period beginning in the late nineteenth century. Many commercial
and institutional buildings have been lost, and those that remain, including the Park buildings, are
representative of a substantial occupancy from the early 20th century up to the present.
2.6
Landscape context and character
2.6.1 Introduction
The cultural landscape assessment of Rondeau Provincial Park is based on historical research, the
existing landscape features that have been created within the Park setting, and finally the
assessment of the cultural heritage value. This has been undertaken using Ontario Regulations 9/06
and 10/06, pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, as a method to compare the existing and historical
development of the Park with current standards for identifying and evaluating cultural heritage
landscapes.
While the provincial Park was formed in 1894, the story of the human interaction with Pointe Aux
Pins can be traced back to the pre-contact period. In addition, European settlers used areas of the
Park for grazing, farming and fishing activities prior to the Park being created. The creation of the
Park in 1894 was in response to wide spread local support for the creation of a Provincial Park in
June 2015
Page 27
southwestern Ontario. This early Park was established with a unique mandate: “Public Park Forest
Reservation and Health Resort”.
The Park from an early period was dedicated to recreation. As part of the provision of recreational
activities, the early Park superintendent created a series of 40 lots that were leased for cottaging.
This was done in part as a source of revenue but also to fulfil a mandate for responding to the
needs of the broader community for recreation in a park setting and as a retreat for health
improvement.
Once the Park was established, comprehensive improvements were undertaken under the direction
of the Park superintendent. These created a cultural landscape which compares favourably with
similar later Provincial Parks in terms of the level and type of development, and the physical
arrangement of the amenities. The Park saw the creation of roadways, trails, campgrounds and
accessory buildings that supported the camping and day use experiences.
In addition, the cottage community developed a similar set of physical features which created a
unique cultural landscape based on cottaging. These features include the orderly development of
a collection of cottages built within a natural environment that would allow for recreational
activities and the quiet contemplation of nature.
The intersection of the cottaging cultural landscape and the Provincial Park cultural landscape
rested in the support facilities that were created in the Park. These include an Anglican and Roman
Catholic Church, the post office, trading post, Park store, the Park pavilion and other recreational
facilities that were added in the Park over a period of time: the maple sugar shack, the aviary, the
horse stables, and the dock to support sport fishing and recreational boating. These amenities were
part of the collection of built heritage resources that supported both the cottage community and
the Park visitors. Similarly, the circulation network within the Park is shared between the cottage
community and camping / day use activities.
The existing configuration of the Park, while it exhibits some significant change over the past
century, has retained much of the original design features that were envisioned to support the
camping and day use picnicking activities and as well the cottage community. The Park has been
evaluated with a view of assessing whether the later additions have complemented the original
vision and design intention of the Park or have they had a negative impact on the integrity of this
unique cultural landscape.
June 2015
Page 28
2.6.2 The Provincial Park movement and historical context
At the end of the 19th century there was a movement within both Canada and the United States to
create park systems that would respond to the prevailing public view of nature. This view was that
with increasing urbanization there was a benefit for humans to have an opportunity to have
experiences within nature that would enhance their daily life. An example of the park movement
within the U.S., started in the late 1800s with the establishment of Yosemite National Park. This park
was established with a view that within the rustic setting of the natural landscape, town sites and
human access would be integrated in such a way that the visitor could experience the grandeur of
nature and appreciate its immense beauty.
In Canada the first National Park to be established was Banff as part of the Rocky Mountain National
Park system. Again, the intention was that access to the beauty of the mountain landscape would
be provided and that a town site would be allowed within the National Park boundary where
visitors could find the kind of accommodation and recreational experiences that they wanted.
Within Ontario, in the same period, there was a movement to create parkland that would provide
many of the same experiences. At the time the view of park creation was multi-faceted with the
idea of recreation being intimately entwined with preservation of natural resources and wise
utilization of those resources.
In 1885, an “Act for the Preservation of Natural Scenery about Niagara Falls” was passed and the
Niagara Parks Commission was established to manage the area in response to overcommercialization of this scenic wonder. The provincial government established the Commission
in order to ensure that the falls and the adjacent lands would be accessible to all visitors. There was
no provincial funding provided and it was intended that the Parks Commission would be selffunded.
Rondeau Provincial Park (proclaimed in 1894) was Ontario’s second Provincial Park. The year before,
Algonquin Park had been established. At the time Algonquin was defined as a National Park
although provincially designated because of the view that each province would be designating
Provincial Parks as part of the network that would form a national system.
Algonquin’s mandate was based on combining, in a compatible way, lumbering and sport fishing
with recreational activities. Algonquin was unique in terms of access in that it was provided
primarily by rail in the early days and private lodges provided accommodations for visitors.
Rondeau Provincial Park was established in 1894. The first superintendent undertook many
improvements with a view to generating revenue. Unlike Algonquin, access to Rondeau was more
June 2015
Page 29
easily accomplished by means of the railway and boat excursions from Shrewsbury Landing which
brought the day use visitors and picnickers.
The popularity of summer resorts and cottaging began early in the 1800s with the first summer
cottage built by the Governor-General of Upper Canada in 1839 near Niagara Falls. The slow
incremental growth in cottaging was attributed primarily to a wealthy class of citizens who had
leisure time and the ability to travel to cottage retreats. By 1867 there were more cottage and
resort activities available that were serviced by steamboats as well as trains. Cottaging activity
occurred primarily in eastern Ontario along the St. Lawrence River, Rice Lake and western Lake
Ontario around Port Credit, Bronte and in the Hamilton area.
The expansion of cottaging to the north was aided with the railway expansion and into
southwestern Ontario with the expansion of the road network. Until the early 20th century,
cottaging remained a slowly growing aspect of recreation in the province. However, beginning in
the 1920s with the increase of availability of a well developed road system, the availability of
automobiles to a wider range of the population and coupled with availability of more recreation
time, cottaging became a very important part of the recreation industry in the province.
The popularity of cottaging extended beyond the provincial boundaries and many American
families acquired lands in the 1920s in Ontario. Continuing until the 1950s, Ontario was a very
popular destination particularly for U.S. residents in the border states such as Ohio, Michigan, and
New York state.
Within the historical context of the National and Provincial Park movement and the increased
interest in cottaging and summer resort activities, the establishment and creation of Rondeau
Provincial Park can be seen an important early example of a designed cultural landscape. Like Banff
and Algonquin and the Niagara Preserve, Rondeau was envisioned to be a place where the natural
resources would provide a setting in which recreational activities including cottaging could take
place. The recreational activities were seen as a method of generating revenue for managing the
care of these resources so they would be sustained for the future.
The establishment of the Provincial Park in 1894 allowed for control of activities which had been
taking place prior to this time such as grazing of cattle and uncontrolled harvesting of timber for a
range of activities by private interests. The Provincial Park was seen as a way of protecting and
managing the natural resources at the same time as well as providing a benefit to the people.
June 2015
Page 30
2.6.3 Landscape character of the study area
The aboriginal activities that occurred at the Pointe aux Pins are not part of this assessment of the
cultural landscape. A separate archaeological study would usually document this important history.
Undoubtedly the First Nations were familiar with the resources that were found on the point and
took advantage of the annual waterfowl migration as well as the resident deer population. Local
finds have revealed a small number of artifacts indicative of such activities. When the Park was
established two aboriginal families lived on the point. The families’ activities included the
harvesting of native ginseng, as well as hunting and fishing.
The historical record of Euro-Canadian influence in Rondeau begins with early explorers who were
travelling along the north shore and came upon the wooded point. Because of the importance of
lumber for the ship building industry and navy purposes, the point was noted as a source of good
timber. Early maps dating from 1855 indicated Rondeau as an area ‘timbered with small white pine
and red cedar’.
The Euro-Canadian settlement of the history of Rondeau begins in the early 1800s. There are
reports of lumbering to provide materials for harbour development in 1844 for the Erieau Cut. Lt.
Governor John Graves Simcoe designated the point as a timber reserve for navy use in the early
1800s. As a result, the point was in the process of being cleared and by the 1870s cattle grazing
was allowed.
The extension of the railway to Shrewsbury and Erieau increased the use of the area for a variety of
people including hunters who regularly travelled to Rondeau each fall.
The first survey of the point was completed in 1881 which laid out a total of 17 lots numbering from
1 at the north end, the lots continued south. Lots 16 and 17 were laid out along the southern limit
of the point and covered the area designated as marshland. Only Lot 1 was taken up for
settlement. The 1881 survey also indicated a trail running the full extent of the point giving access
to the lighthouse and the bay access cut. The Provincial Park boundary follows the layout and
orientation established by Lot 1.
The increase in tourists at the end of the 19th century was in part the result of the access to
Shrewsbury Landing and the excursion boats that brought them to the point.
The Act, as amended in 1910, to establish Rondeau Provincial Park states the purpose of setting
aside 4,946 acres (3,254 ha) was to be set aside as a “Public Park Forest Reservation and Health Resort
for the benefit, advantage and enjoyment of the people of Ontario”. This description has several key
terms which had specific meanings for the establishment of the Park and its intended operation.
June 2015
Page 31
Public park is a term that was reflective of the movement in Canada and the U.S. to establish areas
of outstanding scenic beauty as parks and making them accessible to the public. The intention of
the public park was that it would be a refuge from urban conditions and would provide
enhancements to the citizens of the country by allowing them an opportunity to experience nature
firsthand.
Forest Reservation is part of resource terminology indicating specific principles that were applied in
Algonquin Park as well. The term ‘reservation’ was used specifically to indicate that the forests were
to be set aside and reserved for specific purposes, unlike preservation which implies a management
plan that restricts change and use.
Finally, the ‘Health Resort’ aspect is a term that was coming into use during the middle to late
nineteenth century indicating a retreat recognizing the therapeutic value of having a nature
experience especially for those who had respiratory or other health issues where ‘fresh air’ was a
paramount requirement. A health resort implied a separate place from day to day living where all
of the benefits of a park containing diverse natural resources could be experienced.
The terminology “for the benefit, advantage and enjoyment of the people of Ontario” implies an
economic aspect to the establishment of the Park that reflects not only its social value in allowing
people to get closer to nature but also its economic potential for the citizens of Ontario. This
terminology is part of the thinking of the day that these parks, while being set up for aesthetic or
social reasons, had potential to add to the economy for the province. A specific example of this
idea was the establishment of the Niagara Parks Commission which received no government
funding and was intended in its legislation to be self financed.
The Rondeau Provincial Park Act also lays out the lease options and permission “to lease for any
term of years parcels of land for habitation during the summer that may be necessary for the
accommodation of visitors or persons resorting to the park as a sanitarium or health resort”. Oral
history confirms that many citizens who resided in the former Kent County were advised to take up
a residence in the park for its health benefits.
The Act further outlines the intention that game and fish and wild birds should be preserved and
protected whereas wolves, bears and other obnoxious and injurious animals should be destroyed.
The Act lays out a rudimentary management structure that enabled the Park under the guidance of
Isaac Gardiner, the first Park Superintendent, (called the Caretaker and Ranger) to develop in a
planned way with the addition of amenities or Park facilities that would attract day visitors as well as
generate revenue through the leasing of lots. The Niagara Parks Commission was established to be
self-financing resulting in a very entrepreneurial approach to conservation and incorporation of
June 2015
Page 32
public services within the Niagara Preserve. In a similar way the leasing arrangements for cottages
in Rondeau was also seen as a method of revenue generation.
Under Gardiner’s tenure an initial 40 cottage lots were created and these lots were to complement
the creation of other Park facilities for picnickers and day visitors who attended the site. These
amenities included all types of Park structures such as a pavilion, picnic facilities and later a
significant stone gateway, maple sugar shack, horse stables, aviary and boat launching dock. Other
support facilities were added, two churches, a post office and a trading post.
Land pattern
The original survey of Rondeau was undertaken in 1881. The lot configuration extended
north/south across the point. The southern boundary of Lot 1 was the most northerly property line.
This boundary was carried forward as the Provincial Park boundary. The orientation of the
boundary is not aligned with the north/south road alignment and the resulting layout of cottage
especially along Evangeline Street.
The park boundary remains historically linked to the original survey of 1881.
Circulation
The early Park roadways created a looped roadway that travelled down the eastern part of the point
to the property that was set aside for the federal lighthouse and the opening into Rondeau Bay.
The superintendent intended to create a circular roadway that provided access to all parts of the
land part of the Point. The road returned to the entrance on the western side and from this road
access was created to the bay shore where a boat launch and docking were provided.
The road alignment in some areas took the same alignment as the original Harrison Trail that was
shown on the 1855 map and noted as being from the 1840s.
Within the Park boundary the road gave access to two commercial fisheries. One was located at the
north edge until 1905 and a second, mid-point of the Point until 1958.
The Park campgrounds were generally located on the north half of the Park and were accessed by
means of the primary road entrance, Rondeau Park Road. The concentration of Park facilities also
tended to be in the northern portion of the Park where the Park pavilion, campground, mini-golf,
superintendent’s buildings and horse stables were located.
June 2015
Page 33
The key feature of the Park layout was the visitors’ arrival sequence. The visitor would enter through
a stone and timber gateway which marked the formal arrival and entrance at the Park boundary
(now demolished). The visitor was then invited into the Park where there was a collection of
buildings that created an attractive environment for summer activities. These include the pavilion,
the dance hall and other buildings.
The visitor would then drive down the primary road from the mainland, Rondeau Park Road. Upon
entering the Park the road would continue on to Rondeau Avenue which was a right angled cross
road that took the visitor towards Lake Erie. Rondeau Avenue terminated at a traffic circle which
connected to the most easterly road, Lakeshore Road. The visitor could continue south on Rondeau
Park Road and again use the cross street of Bennett Road to access the easterly Lakeshore Road.
The third cross road that was installed in the Park called Gardiner Road aligns with the former Coll
fishery site. The alignment geometry of this road system provided visitors with access to key parts
of the site while at the same time leaving huge areas of the Park undisturbed and in a natural
condition.
Over the years, additional trails have been developed including the Marsh Trail and the conversion
of Rondeau Park Road at the south end to the South Point Trail. The integration of trails and roads
was a key part of the original and ongoing planning for Rondeau allowing visitors and cottagers to
experience a large part of the point.
The location of the support facilities for campers and cottagers was laid out to take advantage of
the circulation system. The two churches, the pavilion and the traffic circle are all in close proximity
so that the visitor upon entering the Park would have a much enhanced experience as they travel
down the Park driveways. The traffic circle allowed the visitor to have a view of Lake Erie from
within the Park.
Over the years the number and variety of Park facilities has varied significantly. The original picnic
shelters, maple sugar shack, pavilion, mini-golf, aviary and horse stables have all been removed but
they were an important part of making Rondeau a destination for visitors and cottagers alike.
Some of the demolished structures have been replaced with standard Provincial Park buildings
which are designed to have a uniform appearance in most Provincial Parks without acknowledging
that each of the Parks are set in a different environment with its own unique characteristics.
June 2015
Page 34
Visual relationships
The traffic circle and the boat dock are two designed elements that allow for views of open water.
The traffic circle gives full view of the beach and the Lake Erie side whereas the dock provides views
to Rondeau Bay. Many of the views of the water in the bay are obscured by the marsh that is
immediately adjacent to the Park or within the east / west boundary of the Park.
As one enters further south into the Park, the views are framed and shortened by the extensive
vegetation that is found in most of the Park. In several areas, clearings have provided open spaces
which contrast to the vegetation. It is this repetitive contrasting of spaces that creates very scenic
and attractive views within the Park.
The streetscapes primarily along Lakeshore Road allow a view of the cottages set within their green
open space. Many of the cottages have defined their property edge with ornamental stone walls or
ornamental plantings which add interest to the roadscape.
Vegetation
One of the earliest images of the Park dates from 1855 where it is noted that the point is timbered
with small white pine and red cedar
The collection of Carolinian trees found there are remarkable in their diversity. Beech, oak, sassafras,
tulip tree, maples and white pine and red cedar, black walnut, sycamore and others are found in
abundance within the park. In the late 1800s the University of Toronto Forestry School set up
training camps within the Park.
Cottage layout
Within the framework established by the Park road system, the development of the cottage
community followed an orderly geometry with cottage lots being established both along the key
roads such as Rondeau Park Road and Water Street on the west side and Lakeshore Road on the
east side. The early layout of the cottages centred on the perimeter roads.
The expansion of cottage lots proposed in the 1920s and 1930s extended toward the interior of the
Park. Secondary dead end streets were designed perpendicular to Lakeshore Road allowing
cottages to face the street as opposed to facing the main road, although these lots were never put
in place.
June 2015
Page 35
Cottages on Water Street, Rondeau Park Road as well as Lakeshore Road have a unique situation
with cottages fronting both the road and the water. The end result for many cottages is they in fact
have two fronts and each considered equally important.
Another aspect of the circulation system within the Park is the beach access. This is carefully
planned at regular intervals within the cottage development allowing access for the public to the
lake front beach. Over time these access points have developed as trails and they are important
aspects of the Park circulation system. Similarly, pathways have evolved at many cottages to
provide access for beach activities including swimming, boating and the occasional evening
bonfire.
The majority of the beach accesses are on the lake side with a limited number of public access
points on the bay side. These tend to be where there are specific boating facilities.
Campground layout
The circulation pattern within the campground area follows a distinctive organic pattern similar to a
subdivision layout with camp sites located off a series of driveways that are all interconnected and
join onto the main east/west street at a limited number of locations. The advantage of this
driveway pattern is that it gives maximum privacy for the campers separating traffic within the
campground to those going to camp sites as opposed to visitors to the Park who travelling
between the camping areas.
2.7
Land use policy review
2.7.1 Introduction
The character of a heritage conservation district derives largely from the heritage attributes of the
physical environment: buildings, structures, surrounding spaces, and distinctive plantings such as
tree lines and tree canopies. The designation of a heritage conservation district is intended to assist
in the protection and conservation of these features and their attributes by maintaining heritage
elements free from any adverse physical changes, and ensuring that new development
complements the existing heritage resources within the area.
The control of physical change to properties, buildings and structures within a heritage
conservation district falls under the purview of the Ontario Heritage Act. The use of lands and
property, the configuration and placement of buildings on lots, and a variety of other provisions
relating to physical development generally, is governed by a number of provisions under the
Planning Act, such as Official Plans, Zoning By-laws, and Site Plan Control.
June 2015
Page 36
Policies and procedures affecting the use of lands and the siting of buildings and structures have
direct and indirect bearing on the appearance and character of a heritage conservation district.
Accordingly, applicable planning policies and control mechanisms are examined in this section.
The purpose of this review is to ensure that there is no conflict with conservation initiatives, as well
as to identify opportunities to encourage sound heritage conservation district planning by
advocating complementary changes to planning policies and guidelines.
Municipal planning policies typically set the context for the broader pattern of development in any
community, and are usually implemented by an array of more specific policy initiatives under the
Planning Act and the Municipal Act, such as zoning by-laws, site plan control by-laws, and property
standards by-laws. The following subsections identify some key policies and tools, and examine
either potential for conflict with heritage conservation management, or opportunities for change.
Other municipal policies and guidelines, such as management and master plan documents relating
to capital and other physical improvements will be more specifically reviewed as part of the
Heritage Conservation District Plan if it proceeds.
2.7.2 Municipality of Chatham-Kent Official Plan
The Municipality of Chatham-Kent was formed on January 1st, 1998 with the amalgamation of 22
separate municipalities. In 2001, the Municipality began work on a Community Strategic Plan. The
Official Plan is a key component of the implementation of the Community Strategic Plan (ChathamKent Official Plan, pg 1-1). The Municipality of Chatham-Kent Official Plan is the overall policy
document that guides land use planning within the Municipality. The Municipality of ChathamKent recently completed an Official Plan review, and the final version was approved by the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and Housing on May 28th, 2015.
The Official Plan notes in Section 1.8 that various lands, including Rondeau Provincial Park, are not
included in the Official Plan designations because they are not governed by municipal planning
documents. Schedule C4 of the Official Plan includes the notation that the lands at Rondeau
Provincial Park are not included in the Official Plan, but also shows the underlying natural heritage
features present on the site (see Figure 2 on following page).
June 2015
Page 37
Figure 2: Excerpt from Chatham-Kent Official Plan Schedule C4.
June 2015
Page 38
The Official Plan contains some policy guidance related to Rondeau Provincial Park. Section 4.7 of
the Official Plan pertains to open space and conservation, and notes that the Municipality
encompasses a diverse range of parks, natural areas, and recreation facilities that are enhanced by
the water-based recreation opportunities offered by the extensive shorelines. The section
highlights the number of special recreation areas that make Chatham-Kent unique and attractive,
including bird watching, fishing and waterfowl hunting associated with the coastal marshes of
eastern Lake St. Clair and Rondeau Bay. It is noted in Section 4.7.2.11 that Provincial Parks are
guided by land use policies established through means other than the Official Plan.
Although not specifically applicable to Rondeau Provincial Park, Section 2.3.12 contains policies
related to recreational residential uses. It is noted that there are pockets of low density residential
development and cottages with direct access to both public and private roads located along the
shorelines of Lake Erie, Lake Sr. Clair, the Thames River, and the Sydenham River. The policies note
that these areas are attractive because of their scenic vistas, recreational amenities, and relatively
easy commute to the various urban centres. Section 2.3.12.1 notes that the municipality will permit
the development of recreational residential uses in locations that are in close proximity to water
corridors and that will not impact agriculture or the natural environment. This policy direction
suggests that there is general support for the type of cottage development found at Rondeau.
Section 5 of the Official Plan contains policies related to cultural heritage resources, and notes that
Celebrating Our Diverse Heritage is one of six objectives in the Community Strategic Plan for
achieving the vision of Chatham-Kent (Section 5.1). Some of the goals of this section are aimed at
celebrating and supporting the communities of Chatham-Kent, and protecting and promoting the
diverse natural and historic areas.
Section 5.3 notes that cultural heritage includes historically and architecturally significant buildings
and structures, archaeological and cultural sites, and cultural landscapes. The importance of
cultural heritage is recognized due to the ability to provide links to the past of communities.
Heritage objectives include supporting the preservation of the Municipality’s rich cultural heritage
resources, and encouraging the documentation, display, interpretation and celebration of the
cultural heritage. Section 5.3 also contains guidance for the designation of individual properties
under the Ontario Heritage Act, the establishment of heritage conservation districts, and the
protection of archaeological resources.
Section 7.1 of the Official Plan contains policies related to the Sustainable Shoreline Secondary Plan.
Section 7.1.5 of the Official Plan clearly recognizes the important connections between tourism,
recreation and cultural heritage conservation. The Tourism and Recreation Strategy contained in
this section focuses specifically in subsection 7.1.5.9 on the role of Cultural Heritage Resources. The
Official Plan notes that the Municipality has a rich history of cultural heritage, which includes
June 2015
Page 39
historically significant and architecturally significant buildings and structures, archaeological and
cultural sites and cultural landscapes. This Secondary Plan promotes the enhancement of these
resources as a component of the promotion of tourism and recreational uses in the shoreline areas.
The policies of Section 5.3 of the Official Plan provide guidance regarding the conservation of
cultural heritage resources, in addition, the policies of this Secondary Plan support the designation
of heritage districts and cultural heritage landscapes in the shoreline areas.
Policy 7.1.5.9.1.2 states that it shall be the policy of Chatham-Kent that:
“The Municipality may undertake the study and consider the implementation of
management plans for what may be considered important local, regional and/or national
cultural heritage landscapes.”
The Official Plan provides (Sub-section 5.3.2.11) that a number of criteria shall be used to guide the
establishment of heritage conservation districts as follows:
“The Municipality may establish heritage conservation districts pursuant to the Heritage Act to
control the erection, demolition or alteration of buildings. The boundaries of the heritage
conservation district shall be established in consultation with the MHC, the affected property
owners and the surrounding community. The following criteria shall be used to guide the
establishment of a heritage conservation district:
a) An area of historic value or the area possesses at least one of the following criteria:
i)
i)
it forms a part;
June 2015
Page 40
2.7.3 Municipality of Chatham-Kent Zoning By-law
The Municipality of Chatham-Kent Zoning By-law was approved by Council on December 14th,
2009. The most recent consolidation of the By-law is dated June 2nd, 2015. The Zoning By-law does
not provide any zoning regulations related to the Rondeau Provincial Park area.
2.7.4 Potential development issues
The study area is characterized by a variety of cottage dwellings, community buildings, Park
buildings, and open space areas. The demolition of cottage buildings over the years by MNR has
resulted in voids in the streetscape, as well as resulted in the loss of heritage building fabric.
Although the designation of all or a portion of the study area as a Heritage Conservation District
may regulate demolition, the district guidelines (if prepared) should also provide guidance on new
design. Vacant lots and infill development can present challenges within established areas, as there
is the potential for new building forms to be out of character with the existing development. The
District Plan would provide guidance on matters such as building height, setbacks, construction
materials, and roofing to help ensure that any proposed development is compatible with the
surrounding area.
2.7.5 Heritage Conservation District Plan guidance
In order to ensure that there is no conflict between planning and development objectives and the
pursuit of sound heritage conservation and management, the Heritage Conservation District Plan (if
prepared) will identify appropriate changes to Chatham-Kent policies and by-laws, as well as outline
any new measures to be pursued in order to conserve the heritage resources as Rondeau. In
addition, the guidelines should recognize areas under public ownership and the ability of the
guidelines to regulate these areas.
2.8
Heritage conservation and financial incentives
Currently the Municipality of Chatham-Kent has some funding initiatives in place (tax incentives)
that can assist in the implementation of its heritage conservation programs for properties
designated under Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Municipal heritage conservation activities typically comprise two fundamental components: firstly,
a system for regulating changes to the cultural heritage resource usually through a formal process
of designation and subsequent permit approval and secondly, a complementary program of
financial assistance to assist in conserving heritage resources and their component features and
June 2015
Page 41
materials. Balancing the “carrot and stick” approach to conservation is usually an uneven process
with municipal regulation remaining relatively consistent while financial incentives varying
depending on sometimes irregular municipal or provincial budget commitments that may change
from year to year.
The authority to provide financial incentives to heritage resource conservation is established under
both the Ontario Heritage Act and the Municipal Act. Sections 39 and 45 of the Ontario Heritage Act
provide that municipalities may establish by-laws to make grants or loans to owners of designated
heritage properties and Section 365.2 of the Municipal Act makes provisions for enabling municipal
tax rebates to such properties.
2.8.1 Municipal tax incentives
In 2001, the Province enacted legislation allowing municipalities the ability to provide property tax
relief to heritage buildings. The program is discretionary (i.e., municipalities are not required to offer
this type of property tax relief), however if established, the tax relief (which can be either in the form
of a property tax reduction or refund) must be between 10 and 40 percent of the taxes levied on
the property. The Province funds the education portion of the tax relief. The definition of an “eligible
heritage property” as per section 365.2 of the Municipal Act, 2001 is:
A property or portion of a property,
a.
that is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act or is part of a heritage
conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act,
b.
that is subject to,
c.
i.
an easement agreement with the local municipality in which it is located, under
section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act,
ii.
an easement agreement with the Ontario Heritage Foundation, under section 22
of the Ontario Heritage Act, or
iii
an agreement with the local municipality in which it is located respecting the
preservation and maintenance of the property, and
that complies with any additional criteria set out in the by-law passed under this section
by the local municipality in which it is located.
The Municipality of Chatham-Kent currently has in place a tax incentive program, which offers a
25% rebate on the municipal portion of the property taxes. The study team will further investigate
this program as part of work on the Heritage Conservation District Plan (if prepared), and may make
recommendations related to refinement of the program or its applicability to Rondeau.
June 2015
Page 42
2.8.2 Grants
Heritage grants are usually the most manageable of all financial incentives. Capital budget
allocations are typically made in a municipality’s budgeting process. Ideally a program commitment
of at least three to five years is beneficial so that the local community and property owners can plan
within a known framework. The start-up year is usually a slow year with the final year of the
program typically witnessing a rush of applications and demand on funds. Municipal heritage
grants can be focused either on particular building types (residential, commercial industrial and so
on), building features (roofs, foundations, or windows) or specific areas within a municipality such as
brownfields or heritage conservation districts.
Total program commitments and grant amounts may vary depending on municipal priorities but
they must be of a sufficient amount to make applying worthwhile and be of benefit to the property
owner in addressing substantial conservation efforts such as a re-roofing project. Grants may be
organized on a first come-first served basis or by way of an annual or semi-annual competition
ideally synchronized with the relevant construction season.
2.8.3 Loans
Heritage loans may be organized and administered in a similar manner and under the same
circumstances as grants. The fundamental difference is determining an appropriate interest rate
(from interest free to a rate below that of current commercial interest rates) and establishing
administration fees. The most notable disadvantage of a loans program is the internal
administration costs of managing such a municipal initiative, often involving staff time of the legal
and financial departments.
2.8.4 Heritage Conservation District Plan guidance
The Heritage Conservation District Plan (if prepared) will provide clear direction on a successful
strategy of financial incentives for consideration.
June 2015
Page 43
3.0 HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DELINEATION: A RECOMMENDED
BOUNDARY
3.1
Introduction
The purpose of this Heritage Conservation District Study is to determine whether an area has merit
for designation under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, and to recommend an appropriate
boundary. The Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has noted in its published guidelines
“Heritage Conservation Districts: A Guide to District Designation Under the Ontario Heritage Act” that
a heritage conservation district typically displays a number of characteristics:
“A concentration of heritage buildings, sites, structures; designed landscapes, natural landscapes
that are linked by aesthetic, historical and socio-cultural contexts or use.
A framework of structured elements including major natural features such as topography, land
form, landscapes, water courses and built form such as pathways and street patterns, landmarks,
nodes or intersections, approaches and edges.
A sense of visual coherence through the use of such elements as building scale, mass, height,
material, proportion, colour, etc. that convey a distinct sense of time or place.
A distinctiveness which enables districts to be recognised and distinguishable from their
surroundings or from neighbouring areas.”
The Municipality of Chatham-Kent’s Official Plan contains the following criteria to guide the
designation of an area as a heritage conservation district:
“a) An area of historic value or the area possesses at least one of the following criteria:
i)
June 2015
Page 44
i)
it forms a part;
The following section summarizes the key characteristics of the study area based on the inventory
undertake, and provides a discussion of boundary delineation and rationale.
3.2
Summary of the Rondeau study area character
As described in Section 2, the study area contains a number of distinctive features and attributes.
The study area is located on a cuspate sand spit along the shore of Lake Erie, and consists of natural
areas, a cottage collection, Park buildings, camping areas, and supportive public buildings. The
interaction between the features of the Park and the features of the cottage community is an
overlap in facilities that support both components. These features that are intertwined with both
cottagers and Park visitors include the general store, the two churches, the trail heads and access
points and formerly the dance pavilion, bath house, gas station, entrance gate and recreation
activities such as mini golf, bowling, baseball and trail riding.
The original layout and configuration of the Park was intended to ensure that visitors had a unique
experience upon arriving in Rondeau where they could come first hand with its unique natural
environment and at the same time have a very important physical, emotional and spiritual
experience in this rich environment. Rondeau Provincial Park is a unique historic place in that since
its very origin in the late 19th century it has had two separate components that have been fully
integrated in its development. The two components are the Park which includes facilities for day
users and campers and that these facilities have been added in the Park and subsequently removed
over time as changes in park philosophy have occurred. The second component of Rondeau is the
cottage community. This was an important foundation that was recognized in the formation of
the Park and in fact it was the development of the cottage community that financed in large part
the development of the Park features and amenities. Park and cottages have remained intertwined
in the physical layout of Rondeau as well as in the intangible heritage of the Park as a place of
identity and family memory for the cottagers and Park visitors.
June 2015
Page 45
Many features of Rondeau today are evidence of the subsequent cultural landscape that developed
based on the pre-park setting. The first cultural feature of note is the circulation system. It consists
of a very few number of roads that run north – south that give access to the pony barn as well as
providing a lakeshore road along the eastern side that provides access to the row of cottages and a
visitor centre. Several of the roads that formerly existed have been converted to multi-use trails. In
the northern section of the Park there are additional streets that provide access to some of the
earliest cottages that were built in the Park and within the campground itself there is a curvilinear
road pattern typical of campground design not unlike subdivision design where non-uniform shape
lots are accessed from the primary driveway.
The circulation system supports an unique land pattern and this is the alignment of lots that were
created over various periods of time in the Park’s history. Typically the lots immediately front on the
main road and the cottages are placed towards the centre of the lots with unique situations where
the front of the cottages appear to face both the road and to the lake.
One of the areas of the Park that is unique and still quite evident within the area where cottages
and campgrounds have been constructed is the unique topography of the site. Here the linear
ridges that are built up and show the effect of wind and water erosion over time are still evident
and are dramatic in their form. With recent controlled burns around the campground area it is clear
the ridges and the low lying areas are clearly visible and are an important natural feature in the Park.
The other aspect of the topography is the arrangement of the cottages in alignment along
Lakeshore Road. Most of these cottages are sited on a higher ridge so that there is a change in
grade from the edge of the road up to the elevation of the cottage and then the cottage slopes
down again towards the dunes which align the lake side of the cottages.
Much of the vegetation within the Provincial Park area consists of vegetated areas where natural
processes are allowed to occur. Minimal intervention is employed in these areas, and is generally
limited to activities such as mowing and controlled burns in select areas. The Provincial Park does
undertake grass mowing in areas where there is high visitation such as the beach area across from
the community churches and in the group picnic area locations.
Within the Park there are several key views that have historic value. Many of them relate to the
views of the water that is glimpsed through the beach access points. Other historic views include
the view of the bay, which is particularly visible as a backdrop to the Rondeau Yacht Club. Within
the Park itself many of the walkway or laneway views are framed by the mature vegetation that
overhangs the travelled portion of the road or trail and it is this close proximity of the naturalized
vegetation that is part of the important Provincial Park experience for the visitor..
June 2015
3.3
Page 46
District boundary delineation
3.3.1 Framework of structuring elements
The development of the cottage community at Rondeau Provincial Park dates from 1894 when the
area was established as a Provincial Park. Cottaging was integral to the orderly development of the
Park, and cottage lots were laid out in a structured pattern throughout the Park. This layout
provided the structure for the first cottage lots and those established at a later date, as well as the
circulation patterns developed throughout the Park and beach access points. The pattern of
development is evident today and has formed the basis of cottage and Park development for the
past 125 years.
3.3.2 Concentration of heritage resources
The presence of the framework however, is not enough upon which to establish a heritage
conservation district. The Provincial guidance clearly points to the notion of a `framework`, in this
case the lot layout and circulation pattern being complimented by a concentration of heritage
buildings, sites, structures and designed and natural landscapes. The concentration of resources
within the proposed Heritage Conservation District includes both natural and built resources, in the
form of the Park`s natural setting, beach areas, trails, roads, cottages, Park buildings, and supportive
buildings. These features are all linked together at Rondeau Provincial Park and form a
concentration of resources that are linked to the early cottaging industry in Ontario.
3.3.3 Visual coherence of the study area
The framework of structuring elements and concentration of heritage buildings also provide a
considerable degree of visual coherence through the layering of human activities and associated
built form upon the landscape. The visual coherence of the study area is also evident in the views
within the study area, particularly those of the beach areas through the corridors between cottages,
as well as those along the roads within the Park.
3.3.4 Distinctive character
Together, all of the forgoing attributes combine to create an environment and landscape of
distinctive character. The proposed Heritage Conservation District is distinct due to the collection of
cottages within the landscape setting of a Provincial Park, the link to the early cottaging industry in
Ontario, the link to the early development of Rondeau Provincial Park as a place where cottages
were encouraged, and also due to the number of supportive cultural heritage resources that link to
the early development of the cottage community at Rondeau.
June 2015
3.4
Page 47
District boundary definition
The proposed Heritage Conservation District boundary is shown on Figure 3 on the following
page. The proposed boundary includes the cottage collection at Rondeau, some of which date
back more than a century, as well as vacant lots originally surveyed for cottage use, and lots that
once had cottages located on them. The proposed boundary also encompasses the circulation
pattern associated with cottage access, as well as beach areas, the campground, Park buildings
(such as the visitor centre), dock on Rondeau Bay, and other facilities developed in support of the
cottage community at Rondeau. Together, the resources at Rondeau proposed for inclusion in the
Heritage Conservation District reflect the core resources that relate to the cottage community.
The northern boundary of the proposed Heritage Conservation District is coincident with the
northern boundary of Rondeau Provincial Park, and the southern boundary reflects the extent of
surveyed cottage lots. Along the eastern side, the proposed boundary is the water’s edge. The
western boundary includes the entire width of the Park in the northern portion, and then narrows
to include the cottage lots and road network as one moves southward along Lakeshore Road. The
boundary widens again to include the Park visitor centre. The proposed District boundary does not
include the lands at Rondeau Provincial Park that contain the majority of the natural heritage
features.
3.4.1 Public consultation and district boundary re-definition
The draft boundary was presented to the community during a consultation meeting held on May
22nd, 2015. Approximately 100 people were in attendance, and one of the questions asked to the
group was related to the boundary. Comment sheets were also handed out, and further input was
invited related to the boundary of the Heritage Conservation District. There was overwhelming
support for the proposed boundary as recommended by the study team. Some suggestions were
made about making the boundary larger to encompass the entire Park, as well as including the
group camping areas. The study team has reviewed these suggestions further since the meeting
date. Regarding expansion to include the entire Park, the view of the study team is that the
naturalized areas of the Park are appropriately managed through MNRF staff initiatives. Related to
the inclusion of the group camping areas, it is the understanding of the study team that the
location used today was only recently established, and that the original location may have been in
the far southern reach of the Park but that no evidence remains. As such, no changes are
recommended to include this area.
June 2015
Page 48
Figure 3: Rondeau Heritage Conservation District proposed boundary
June 2015
3.5
Page 49
Conclusions
The proposed boundary appropriately contains the cottage community at Rondeau, as well as the
circulation network and other supportive Park / community facilities. Taken together, the resources
provide a rationale for the designation of this area as a heritage conservation district under Part V of
the Ontario Heritage Act. Within the proposed district there are approximately 285 cottage
properties (see Appendix A).
The proposed District contains a number of properties and features that do not readily fall into the
category of “heritage” and are of more recent origins, but these are included as they are important
to the character of the area. Most, if not all heritage conservation districts in Ontario contain
contemporary buildings and spaces and it is not unusual to find these features co-existing with
heritage resources. Appropriate guidelines in the Heritage Conservation District Plan will address
the management of all resources in the landscape.
It is concluded that there is merit in proceeding to the second phase of the Heritage Conservation
District project, namely the preparation of a Heritage Conservation District Plan containing
guidance on the management of the district’s character and attributes.
June 2015
Page 50
4.0 RECOMMENDED OBJECTIVES OF THE
PROPOSED DESIGNATION AND PLAN
CONTENT
4.1
Introduction
Section 1 of this report noted that the scope of this Heritage Conservation District Study was
guided by the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act, notably subsection 40(2) which prescribes
that a study will contain a number of components and shall :
(c) consider and make recommendations as to the objectives of the designation and the content of the
heritage conservation district plan required under section 41.1;
As prescribed in the Ontario Heritage Act the planning and management of a heritage conservation
district involves two stages: the preparation of a study followed by preparation of a plan. The key
aim of the heritage conservation district study is to detail the heritage character and attributes of an
area and provide a rationale for designating the place as a heritage conservation district.
While proceeding with, and preparing, the district plan can only be directed by Municipal Council, it
is important that in keeping with the requirement noted above that some idea of what the district
plan may contain be explored here. The district plan is intended to provide the basis for the
sensitive conservation, management and protection of the district’s identified heritage features. The
plan will provide a series of tailored guidelines for change within both the public and private realms
of the proposed heritage conservation district.
The district plan is also intended to provide guidance on a variety of other matters including
changes to planning, development and policy matters as well as other municipal activities such as
financial incentives, public works, and streetscape improvements.
At the core of designating any district is the implicit assumption that much of the conservation
implementation related to managing physical change within the area will be undertaken in
reviewing and making decisions about heritage permit applications under Part V of the Ontario
Heritage Act. It is important that all potential participants in the decision-making process be aware
of all those who will be using the Heritage Conservation District Plan.
June 2015
Page 51
The conservation district plan should be used and consulted by the following people, agencies and
authorities:
•
Property owners;
•
Municipal Council;
•
Municipal Heritage Committee;
•
Municipal staff; and
•
Local utilities.
Given the various diverse interests and values that may exist within the heritage conservation
district plan area, it is important to recognize in a formal statement of intent the assumptions and
objectives that are to be sought in conserving, protecting and managing the heritage conservation
district. These are contained in the following sections and will form the part of the heritage
conservation district plan if a decision is made to proceed with that phase of the district
designation process.
4.2
Objectives of the proposed designation for the Rondeau Heritage
In designating the Rondeau Heritage Conservation District, a number of key objectives are sought
as follows:
•
To maintain and conserve the heritage character of streets within the District, trails, and the
shoreline areas.
•
To protect and enhance heritage property and views in both the public and private realm
including existing heritage residential buildings, public buildings and structures, Park
buildings, open spaces, and associated trees and vegetation.
•
To avoid the loss or removal of heritage buildings, structures and landscape fabric and
encourage only those changes that are undertaken in a manner that if such alterations were
removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the heritage property, materials
and fabric would remain unimpaired.
•
To encourage building and property owners to make continuing repairs and undertake
maintenance of property in order to conserve the overall character and appearance of the
District, in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act and other Provincial cultural heritage
policies.
June 2015
Page 52
•
To support the continuing care, conservation and maintenance of heritage properties
wherever appropriate by providing guidance on sound conservation practice and
encouraging applications to funding sources for eligible work.
•
To encourage the maintenance and protection of the public realm of the District, as well as
avoiding or minimizing adverse effects of public undertakings.
•
To manage trees, treelines and manicured grass areas that contribute to the cultural
heritage value of the District.
•
To protect, maintain and enhance open space by encouraging changes that respect the
open space and the vegetative character of the public realm.
•
To encourage the maintenance of a low-profile built form within the District.
•
To support existing uses and adaptive re-uses wherever feasible within the existing building
stock.
•
To prevent the establishment of those land uses and associated built forms and features
which would be out of keeping with or have detrimental effects upon the character of the
District.
•
To prevent the demolition of existing buildings or structures.
•
To permit new development only when it respects or otherwise complements the
prevailing character of the existing heritage buildings and landscapes within the District.
•
To examine funding sources and adopt appropriate funding programs within the
Municipality of Chatham-Kent’s capability to provide ongoing support to District property
owners.
•
To encourage the continued cohabitation of natural and cultural heritage resources.
•
To recognize that many authorities are responsible for the conservation and management
of resources within the Park, and that special approaches to conservation may be warranted.
June 2015
4.3
Page 53
Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Plan content
It is expected that the Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Plan will contain a number of
provisions that satisfy the requirements of Subsection 41.1(5) of the Ontario Heritage Act including
the following:
•
A statement of the objectives to be achieved in designating the area as a heritage
conservation district.
•
A statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the Heritage Conservation
District.
•
A description of the heritage attributes of the Heritage Conservation District and of
properties within the District.
•
Design guidelines for alterations and additions to heritage buildings and structures,
including façades and signage.
•
Design guidelines for alterations and additions to contemporary buildings and structures.
•
Guidelines on new construction as infill development.
•
Guidelines on demolition and removal of buildings and structures.
•
Landscape conservation guidelines for both public and private property.
•
Funding initiatives.
•
Changes to municipal planning and administrative procedures.
•
Descriptions of alterations or classes of alterations that can be carried out without obtaining
a heritage permit under section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
June 2015
200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE / KITCHENER / ONTARIO / N2B 3X9 / T: 519-576-3650 / F: 519-576-0121 /
WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM

rondeau heritage conservation district study - Chatham-Kent

Transcription

Similar documents

Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park

Rondeau Provincial Park - Heritage Canada Foundation

Xero House

enREDo International Design Network

From the Geosciences to the Material Culture in

Heritage Committee Monday, November 16, 2015 7:00 p.m. Council

For Adding to the World Heritage List

The Max Liebling House Tel Aviv Keeping it Modern

Virtual 3D Reconstruction of Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Summer-2016 - The Canadian Heritage of Quebec